From: "Nick Hostettler" <nh8-AT-soas.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:49:28 GMT
Subject: BHA: More on TD/ID


Tobin said: 
> I agree with much of what you say, but I want to point out that at
> a couple of moments, you want the TD/ID relationship to be causal. 

You could say, rather, that I see the terms intranstive and transitive 
as referring to real relations, i.e. they are strictly *ontological* 
terms. Intransitivity refers to social relations in which things do not 
change and or/ social relations which do not constitute the 
conditions of possibility a thing's existence. So, a conceptual 
relation to a non-cognitive object does not change that object: 
conducting an experiment on gravitation does not change that 
object either. Transitivity, on the other hand, refers to social 
relations which are constitutive of a thing and/or its conditions of 
existence. Intellectual practices change meanings and thoughts and 
might be part of a change in practice,  which might in turn change 
other things.

For this reason I don't think the distinction can be mapped onto a 
thought vs. not thought distinction. Nor can it be equated with purely 
logical distinctions. This mis-identifies a particular content with 
abstract categories. I was suggesting that it is contentlessness, 
their reference to the level of universality only that makes them so 
valuable as dialectical categories for ontology.

Nick.











---------------------------------
Nick Hostettler,
Department of Political Studies,
SOAS (University of London),
Thornaugh Street,
Russell Square,
London WC1H 0XG
---------------------------------


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---